4. The Word in heart bursts out through delighted lips vs 13-16
So, in the second half of our passage today we see that the Psalmist can’t contain himself – his heart, filled with the word of God overflows onto his delighted lips. He puts the laws that come from the mouth of God into his own mouth, and recounts them, speaking them aloud to himself (vs 13). He ‘rejoices in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches’ (vs 14) – he’s like a lottery winner in his elation. As he reads and mediates, he rejoices and delights. And why wouldn’t he, knowing what these words contain – not condemnation, but life.
That word ‘meditate’ distracts us a bit, because we are used to associating it with the more Eastern practice of meditation, in which you are supposed to clear your mind of all words and thoughts and listen to the sound of one hand clapping (or whatever it is), or by humming a mantra, which is a meaningless sound like ‘Om’.
In Biblical faith, there is a place for solitary contemplation. But in the Bible, meditation is inescapably a verbal thing – it is always a matter of relating the Word of God, since that is how God chooses to relate to us. Its focus is the text and what it says. If God has revealed himself in words, then the way to know him and to be known by him is not to rid yourself of words – rather, it is to immerse yourself in them. If these words have a divine origin, then to know God is to know these words – and to know them deeply is to know God deeply.
And what our ancient poet does is to read these words aloud to himself. Truth be told, the practice of silent reading is a relatively recent one – about 1000 years old. Ancient libraries would have been very noisy places, because even reading to yourself was still reading aloud. But there’s something we miss by not reading aloud – when we read or sing or recite the words of God, the words in a sense become our words. These words are not magic formulas, or spells – but when we say them, even if only to ourselves, they are powerful and effective. These words can so possess us that they become our words.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
New Moore site!
Hey, I shoulda said so a week or so back -
but Moore College has an exciting new very Newtowny website.
One of the absolute highlights is the 'featured resources' section - in which you can access mp3s of talks and sermons given at Moore over a period of 30 or 40 years or so. Look out for a lecture by Helmut Thielicke which should be popping up soon.
but Moore College has an exciting new very Newtowny website.
One of the absolute highlights is the 'featured resources' section - in which you can access mp3s of talks and sermons given at Moore over a period of 30 or 40 years or so. Look out for a lecture by Helmut Thielicke which should be popping up soon.
3. Psalm 119:9-16
3. The Word in the Heart has power to keep us walking in God’s way (vs 9-12)
And though he doesn’t make any mention of those events here in Psalm 119, that’s the background – that’s the God whose word it is he is celebrating. It’s a word of grace and power.
You can see that in these first few verses of today’s section – vs 9-12. He starts out here with a very important question: How can those who are young keep their way pure? This is not so much a question for the young person; but rather, it is the question you might ask as you see your life stretching before you: ‘how can I, over all those years ahead, preserve my life in purity and holiness? How can I, knowing the weakness of my own flesh and how vulnerable I am, hope to live God’s way?’
It’s a powerful question, isn’t it? The Psalmist knows how prone he is like all of us to ‘stray from your commands’. Keeping ourselves from sin isn’t within our human power. Have you ever considered how impossible it is to stop ourselves from the ingrained habits of a lifetime? To give away our instinctive tendency to tell lies; or to master our anger; or to stop our habit of tearing others down?
And so, he says ‘I seek you with all my heart…’ (vs 10). But he knows, too, that he can only do that as the word is hidden in his heart (vs 11). It is only as he takes God’s word on board that he is enabled to know what it is to not sin against God – to live the way he is supposed to. Allowing the word of God to inhabit him is exactly the way to keep his ways pure.
So what does ‘hiding the word of God in his heart’ mean? It means more than knowing the right answers to a Bible quiz. Now, I am a minister’s son – and so I grew up with a pretty good grasp of who was who and what was what in the text of the Bible. I could win the Christian Studies prize no trouble. But having the word in your mind is not the same as having it in your heart. Your heart is a way of speaking about your desires and intentions: the things you want and long for. And so: hiding the word of God in your heart means letting that word not just into your head but into your very being.
But there’s something we need to add to this picture. Notice that even though he is active in learning, it is God who he wants to teach him (vs 12). In the Bible, God’s word is the means by which he does things. How does he create the world, after all? We hear in Hebrews that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword. It’s dynamic. A friend of mine explains it by saying that God’s word tells us, but it also turns us and tethers us. That is: it isn’t just that we hear information about God when he speaks to us. In his word, we actually encounter him – and he himself works on us as we read it, changing us to be more like him and binding us to himself.
It’s powerful, this word. And you can begin to see why this guy loves it so much: because it isn’t of rules that he can’t ever keep. In these words he finds the power to keep him walking God’s way.
And though he doesn’t make any mention of those events here in Psalm 119, that’s the background – that’s the God whose word it is he is celebrating. It’s a word of grace and power.
You can see that in these first few verses of today’s section – vs 9-12. He starts out here with a very important question: How can those who are young keep their way pure? This is not so much a question for the young person; but rather, it is the question you might ask as you see your life stretching before you: ‘how can I, over all those years ahead, preserve my life in purity and holiness? How can I, knowing the weakness of my own flesh and how vulnerable I am, hope to live God’s way?’
It’s a powerful question, isn’t it? The Psalmist knows how prone he is like all of us to ‘stray from your commands’. Keeping ourselves from sin isn’t within our human power. Have you ever considered how impossible it is to stop ourselves from the ingrained habits of a lifetime? To give away our instinctive tendency to tell lies; or to master our anger; or to stop our habit of tearing others down?
And so, he says ‘I seek you with all my heart…’ (vs 10). But he knows, too, that he can only do that as the word is hidden in his heart (vs 11). It is only as he takes God’s word on board that he is enabled to know what it is to not sin against God – to live the way he is supposed to. Allowing the word of God to inhabit him is exactly the way to keep his ways pure.
So what does ‘hiding the word of God in his heart’ mean? It means more than knowing the right answers to a Bible quiz. Now, I am a minister’s son – and so I grew up with a pretty good grasp of who was who and what was what in the text of the Bible. I could win the Christian Studies prize no trouble. But having the word in your mind is not the same as having it in your heart. Your heart is a way of speaking about your desires and intentions: the things you want and long for. And so: hiding the word of God in your heart means letting that word not just into your head but into your very being.
But there’s something we need to add to this picture. Notice that even though he is active in learning, it is God who he wants to teach him (vs 12). In the Bible, God’s word is the means by which he does things. How does he create the world, after all? We hear in Hebrews that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword. It’s dynamic. A friend of mine explains it by saying that God’s word tells us, but it also turns us and tethers us. That is: it isn’t just that we hear information about God when he speaks to us. In his word, we actually encounter him – and he himself works on us as we read it, changing us to be more like him and binding us to himself.
It’s powerful, this word. And you can begin to see why this guy loves it so much: because it isn’t of rules that he can’t ever keep. In these words he finds the power to keep him walking God’s way.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
2. Psalm 119:9-16
2. This guy really loves the word of God
For the guy who wrote Psalm 119, there is no question about what really cooks his breakfast: it is the word of God. It isn’t just that he likes it: he is fascinated by it.
For one thing, he keeps telling us quite explicitly how he delights in the law of God throughout his Psalm – in verse 16, 24, 35, 47, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174.
But that’s not all – a closer look at this Psalm shows that is a lovingly-constructed love song to the word of God. It’s a long song, too – the longest single chapter in the Bible. But being so long doesn’t mean that the details have been rushed. It is like a carefully-made tapestry, with stitching so fine that you don’t notice it at first. But look more closely and you can see the care and the fine handiwork that has woven the pieces together with expert needlework.
For one thing, the Psalm is an acrostic poem – which is to say that each little section of about eight lines begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in alphabetical order. You can see that from the way it is printed in the pew Bibles. This week we are going to focus on the second of those sections, the ‘B’ section. What’s more – and this is something that would take a very skilled translator to get into English – each verse of each section begins with the corresponding letter. So it sounds a guess a little like those Dr Seuss alphabet books, but not as child-like as that.
But another thing about this poem is that the Psalmist has got eight special words that he plays with all through the Psalm. And they are ‘word’ Words – words that have to do with the word.
So: law, statutes, precepts, decrees, commands, laws, word, and promise.
In each verse at least one of these words appears ¬– so you can see that in today’s section, which is titled ‘Beth’ after Hebrew letter for B, each verse has one of the 'word' words. And what is even more clever – in almost every section, he manages to use all eight of the ‘word’ words. He shuffles through the whole deck of them each time. It’s like a pattern of colours repeating over and over.
It’s a virtuoso performance, in a kind of obsessive compulsive way. But it isn’t just a case of him being a complete smarty pants. There is a tender care for his workmanship here. This guy really, really loves the word of God – he is fascinated by it. And he doesn’t just tell us that – he shows it to us in the way he has constructed his love song to the word. He wants us to slow down and take it in.
I have to admit though, that I have always been a little put off by his enthusiasm. I never really ‘got’ it. What is he seeing that I am not seeing?
I think it is the word English word ‘law’ that has put me off, and probably seems strange to us all. What do you think of when you think of ‘laws’? I think of parking police and school principals and rugby referees. For us, laws are the frames around our lives. They define our limits.
But the word ‘law’ in the Bible has a far richer and more positive meaning. It doesn’t just mean ‘the rules’. It means the whole record of God’s dealings with his people – seeking them out to make them a people. For this writer, he would have especially thought of the time of the Exodus, when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt and led them into the Promised Land, even though they were at that time a nation of slaves. Then he took them to Mount Sinai and gave them his law – how they were to respond to him and to live as his people. He called them to obey him because he had saved them. These words are words of grace.
For the guy who wrote Psalm 119, there is no question about what really cooks his breakfast: it is the word of God. It isn’t just that he likes it: he is fascinated by it.
For one thing, he keeps telling us quite explicitly how he delights in the law of God throughout his Psalm – in verse 16, 24, 35, 47, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174.
But that’s not all – a closer look at this Psalm shows that is a lovingly-constructed love song to the word of God. It’s a long song, too – the longest single chapter in the Bible. But being so long doesn’t mean that the details have been rushed. It is like a carefully-made tapestry, with stitching so fine that you don’t notice it at first. But look more closely and you can see the care and the fine handiwork that has woven the pieces together with expert needlework.
For one thing, the Psalm is an acrostic poem – which is to say that each little section of about eight lines begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in alphabetical order. You can see that from the way it is printed in the pew Bibles. This week we are going to focus on the second of those sections, the ‘B’ section. What’s more – and this is something that would take a very skilled translator to get into English – each verse of each section begins with the corresponding letter. So it sounds a guess a little like those Dr Seuss alphabet books, but not as child-like as that.
But another thing about this poem is that the Psalmist has got eight special words that he plays with all through the Psalm. And they are ‘word’ Words – words that have to do with the word.
So: law, statutes, precepts, decrees, commands, laws, word, and promise.
In each verse at least one of these words appears ¬– so you can see that in today’s section, which is titled ‘Beth’ after Hebrew letter for B, each verse has one of the 'word' words. And what is even more clever – in almost every section, he manages to use all eight of the ‘word’ words. He shuffles through the whole deck of them each time. It’s like a pattern of colours repeating over and over.
It’s a virtuoso performance, in a kind of obsessive compulsive way. But it isn’t just a case of him being a complete smarty pants. There is a tender care for his workmanship here. This guy really, really loves the word of God – he is fascinated by it. And he doesn’t just tell us that – he shows it to us in the way he has constructed his love song to the word. He wants us to slow down and take it in.
I have to admit though, that I have always been a little put off by his enthusiasm. I never really ‘got’ it. What is he seeing that I am not seeing?
I think it is the word English word ‘law’ that has put me off, and probably seems strange to us all. What do you think of when you think of ‘laws’? I think of parking police and school principals and rugby referees. For us, laws are the frames around our lives. They define our limits.
But the word ‘law’ in the Bible has a far richer and more positive meaning. It doesn’t just mean ‘the rules’. It means the whole record of God’s dealings with his people – seeking them out to make them a people. For this writer, he would have especially thought of the time of the Exodus, when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt and led them into the Promised Land, even though they were at that time a nation of slaves. Then he took them to Mount Sinai and gave them his law – how they were to respond to him and to live as his people. He called them to obey him because he had saved them. These words are words of grace.
Monday, December 07, 2009
1. 119:9-16 The Word that Delights: Why the Word of God can make your heart sing
1. Do you love the Bible?
Do you love the Bible? I mean really love it? Do you delight in it?
I am not sure I know how would answer that question myself. I believe the Bible. I study it. I think it is true, and authoritative. I even think that in it, God speaks to us – it is his written Word.
But love it?
That sounds a bit too nerdy – a bit too much like saying to your maths teacher that you love your maths text book. Or writing a letter to the Department of the Treasury saying how much you enjoy paying your taxes this year - and thanks so much for the opportunity.
I don’t know what you delight it – it might be that you delight in your children, or your spouse, or in your work, or in your passion for a sport or hobby. Or it might be that your heart sings when you remember a certain possession you own – a car or a house, perhaps, or even something much less expensive than that.
To love something, we know, means that your instinctive attention is given to it. When your delight is in something you don’t need to think about it – you are drawn to it. The thing you delight in is almost a part of you. People who know you know that this is your delight because it shapes your waking moments. Your direction in life is governed by what your love is. It’s your whole being that is taken over by it.
My grandfather’s great passion was for golf. He was a printer by trade, but that was not the thing in which he delighted so much as the time he could spend on the golf course. He quite liked his grandchildren, too, and enjoyed them – but really, it was golf. I remember his joy when he was able to play golf again without pain after he had a hip replacement, and I caddied for him as he won the C grade championship at his club at aged 76. You could see the delight on his face.
But to have that kind of pleasure in the Bible? That feels a little intense, doesn’t it?
Do you love the Bible? I mean really love it? Do you delight in it?
I am not sure I know how would answer that question myself. I believe the Bible. I study it. I think it is true, and authoritative. I even think that in it, God speaks to us – it is his written Word.
But love it?
That sounds a bit too nerdy – a bit too much like saying to your maths teacher that you love your maths text book. Or writing a letter to the Department of the Treasury saying how much you enjoy paying your taxes this year - and thanks so much for the opportunity.
I don’t know what you delight it – it might be that you delight in your children, or your spouse, or in your work, or in your passion for a sport or hobby. Or it might be that your heart sings when you remember a certain possession you own – a car or a house, perhaps, or even something much less expensive than that.
To love something, we know, means that your instinctive attention is given to it. When your delight is in something you don’t need to think about it – you are drawn to it. The thing you delight in is almost a part of you. People who know you know that this is your delight because it shapes your waking moments. Your direction in life is governed by what your love is. It’s your whole being that is taken over by it.
My grandfather’s great passion was for golf. He was a printer by trade, but that was not the thing in which he delighted so much as the time he could spend on the golf course. He quite liked his grandchildren, too, and enjoyed them – but really, it was golf. I remember his joy when he was able to play golf again without pain after he had a hip replacement, and I caddied for him as he won the C grade championship at his club at aged 76. You could see the delight on his face.
But to have that kind of pleasure in the Bible? That feels a little intense, doesn’t it?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Help my unbelief...
1. Introduction: To those whose patron saint is Thomas...
Wherever there has been belief, there has also been doubt. And yet Christians are often ashamed to admit to doubts and have difficulty articulating the nature of their doubts. Because faith itself is personal (and not merely propositional), the sting of doubt is in the way it attacks us personally. This book will address doubt as a spiritual condition, rather than particular doubts. In doing so, we will also need to consider what faith itself is, and how a Christian may claim assurance.
Part One
Reasons for Doubt? An Anatomy of the 21st Century Soul
2. I Can’t Trust Myself
Much Christian doubting comes not from doubting God but from doubting one’s self. If my heart is infinitely self-deceiving, then how can I believe that I have faith? How can I trust that I trust, if part of what I believe is my essential untrustworthiness? The journey into the interior world of the self does not leave us feeling very confident either. Although it is a very contemporary problem in many ways, we introduce Augustine of Hippo here as a fellow traveler when it comes to self-mistrust. His own journey into the centre of the self stands as a warning and an encouragement to those of us who doubt ourselves.
3. Numb
Feeling nothing towards God – even while still affirming the truths of the Christian faith – is a form of doubt which many Christians experience. It is a disbelief in God’s ongoing action in the world. Do I still have faith if I feel nothing?
4. What is Truth?
In an age of far too much information, how can we know what is true anymore? If people interpret the Bible so differently, then what chance have we got of getting it right?
5. My Enemies Surround Me
Many of the Psalms cry out to God from the situation of being attacked by enemies. In the contemporary West, this feeling of being surrounded is still there and still potential lethal for faith, though the nature of the attack is very different?
6. Because it hurts
Will my faith survive a terrible episode of grief and suffering? Will suffering make it all seem impossible? Is suffering proof of my lack of faith?
7. Is Doubt Sinful?
Perhaps we dignify doubt by giving it a kind of aura of authenticity. While it is certainly the case that some doubts are just due to the fact that we worship an invisible God, it is possible for doubt to be a kind of wilful refusal to acknowledge the truth about God. James, Jesus’ brother, seems quite clear on the detrimental effects of doubt. How can we know our doubt is sinful in fact?
Part Two
Believing Again
9. Learning to Walk Again
A period of doubt can be crippling for the Christian. How can I find my feet again? What directions are there for getting back on track?
10. Hearing
Faith itself is not so much a matter of seeing but of hearing – hearing especially the promises of God. The ears, as Luther said, are the organ of the Christian.
11. Waiting
The Christian life consists of a lot of waiting – and yet waiting is one of the things we fear to do most of all. It sounds so passive. And yet Christian waiting is an extremely active business.
12. Getting the Feeling Back
While experience is not the ground of Christian assurance in my knowing that the gospel is for me ought there not be some growing affection for God?
13. Worth Believing In?
Ultimately, what at issue in doubt is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom we are called to have faith. Is he trustworthy, good and powerful to save?
Wherever there has been belief, there has also been doubt. And yet Christians are often ashamed to admit to doubts and have difficulty articulating the nature of their doubts. Because faith itself is personal (and not merely propositional), the sting of doubt is in the way it attacks us personally. This book will address doubt as a spiritual condition, rather than particular doubts. In doing so, we will also need to consider what faith itself is, and how a Christian may claim assurance.
Part One
Reasons for Doubt? An Anatomy of the 21st Century Soul
2. I Can’t Trust Myself
Much Christian doubting comes not from doubting God but from doubting one’s self. If my heart is infinitely self-deceiving, then how can I believe that I have faith? How can I trust that I trust, if part of what I believe is my essential untrustworthiness? The journey into the interior world of the self does not leave us feeling very confident either. Although it is a very contemporary problem in many ways, we introduce Augustine of Hippo here as a fellow traveler when it comes to self-mistrust. His own journey into the centre of the self stands as a warning and an encouragement to those of us who doubt ourselves.
3. Numb
Feeling nothing towards God – even while still affirming the truths of the Christian faith – is a form of doubt which many Christians experience. It is a disbelief in God’s ongoing action in the world. Do I still have faith if I feel nothing?
4. What is Truth?
In an age of far too much information, how can we know what is true anymore? If people interpret the Bible so differently, then what chance have we got of getting it right?
5. My Enemies Surround Me
Many of the Psalms cry out to God from the situation of being attacked by enemies. In the contemporary West, this feeling of being surrounded is still there and still potential lethal for faith, though the nature of the attack is very different?
6. Because it hurts
Will my faith survive a terrible episode of grief and suffering? Will suffering make it all seem impossible? Is suffering proof of my lack of faith?
7. Is Doubt Sinful?
Perhaps we dignify doubt by giving it a kind of aura of authenticity. While it is certainly the case that some doubts are just due to the fact that we worship an invisible God, it is possible for doubt to be a kind of wilful refusal to acknowledge the truth about God. James, Jesus’ brother, seems quite clear on the detrimental effects of doubt. How can we know our doubt is sinful in fact?
Part Two
Believing Again
9. Learning to Walk Again
A period of doubt can be crippling for the Christian. How can I find my feet again? What directions are there for getting back on track?
10. Hearing
Faith itself is not so much a matter of seeing but of hearing – hearing especially the promises of God. The ears, as Luther said, are the organ of the Christian.
11. Waiting
The Christian life consists of a lot of waiting – and yet waiting is one of the things we fear to do most of all. It sounds so passive. And yet Christian waiting is an extremely active business.
12. Getting the Feeling Back
While experience is not the ground of Christian assurance in my knowing that the gospel is for me ought there not be some growing affection for God?
13. Worth Believing In?
Ultimately, what at issue in doubt is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom we are called to have faith. Is he trustworthy, good and powerful to save?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Eternity magazine
You may not have seen Eternity magazine yet.
But I think they are doing a really good job - the second issue is an improvement on the first, and the first was good. It's a freebie - just go to the website and you can order it for your church anywhere in Oz.
In this month's issue, I have written an article about God and laughter.
But I think they are doing a really good job - the second issue is an improvement on the first, and the first was good. It's a freebie - just go to the website and you can order it for your church anywhere in Oz.
In this month's issue, I have written an article about God and laughter.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Two articles
Is Scripture Clear? Ten Ideas on the Clarity of Scripture is over at Anglican Media.
Peace for our time?, my piece on the end of Communism, is now at ABC Unleashed.
Peace for our time?, my piece on the end of Communism, is now at ABC Unleashed.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Church order
Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles (Of the Traditions of the Church) reads thus:
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.
So - there is here envisaged a liturgical flexibility. Modifications can and should be made for the customs of the place. Christians do not meet according to a rigidly fixed pattern, or aping the historical dress and customs of a time gone by. But the principle is normative, not regulative: that is, freedom is allowed insofar as it is constrained by God's word, rather than it being dictated lock stock and barrel by it. Indeed, the last sentence of the article is this:
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
So: have confirmation, or don't have confirmation (for example).
But the middle section of the article reads:
Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
That is: even though there is a freedom for individual national churches to change the style (for want of a better word) of their services - and indeed they ought to do so - it is also most definitely NOT a matter of private judgement. It is not a matter of the local clergy varying the practices without authorisation and/or consultation. Why is that? Because of the weak consciences of the faithful and because the authority so set up is undermined by the practice.
Notice that, while on the one hand there is not a whiff that the agreed liturgical practice is soteriologically significant, or that it can't be varied or even radically changed, this is not in tension with the importance of maintaining church order. In a lot of discussions about church practices that I hear, this subtlety is not expressed. Church order is the way in which each church or fellowship of churches puts into practice the kind of teaching we receive from Paul in 1 Corinthians 8-14. It does not substitute for that teaching: it expresses it, for ''God is not a God of chaos but of peace." The church's observance of ordered corporate worship is a reflection of the character of God himself. (Ordered doesn't mean 'formal', by the way, or not relaxed, or inauthentic. It just means that things are done in the meeting are consistent with the purpose of mutual edification.)
Note that that the sacraments are practiced is certainly not optional as far as the Articles are concerned - because these were rites not instituted by man's authority, but by the Lord (see Articles 25-31). It is hard to see how anyone could possibly argue that the sacraments themselves are optional, or merely 'helpful', and remain Anglican in any meaningful sense. But how the sacraments might be practiced may indeed be varied on the condition that this is not a matter of private judgement - because of the kind of troubling disorder that reflects badly on the God whose name we seek to honour. (I hasten to add that the Articles certainly don't make this a free for all. Those practices which communicate an essentially Roman Catholic view of the Supper it does not endorse: elevating the host, carrying it about and so on. All of these are flagrantly ignored in much Anglican practice I have to say. The history of the Oxford movement involved, bizarrely, a good deal of disregard for church order in the name of ... church order.)
Let me summarise: you can have an agreed on church order, and take that order seriously, without suggesting that observance of that order is somehow a matter of salvation, or a work that we think accrues some kind of merit for us. And you shouldn't just break from church order just because it suits you, without proper regard for the fellowship of churches in which you operate. And churches should be innovate and liberating in allowing various ways in which order can be expressed, too.
Right?
Monday, November 02, 2009
On Psalm 119 modified
Ok, how's this:
Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word: Why the Word of God has Everything You Need fo Joy, Safety and Direction
119:9-16 The Word that Delights: Why the Word of God can make your heart sing
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves: How the Word of God can save your life
119:105-112 The Word that Guides: How the Word of God can shape your destiny
Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word: Why the Word of God has Everything You Need fo Joy, Safety and Direction
119:9-16 The Word that Delights: Why the Word of God can make your heart sing
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves: How the Word of God can save your life
119:105-112 The Word that Guides: How the Word of God can shape your destiny
Friday, October 30, 2009
On Psalm 119
I am preparing a sermon series on Psalm 119. And it's tougher than it looks!
Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word
119:9-16 The Word that Delights
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves
119:105-112 The Word that Guides
Pretty dull, huh?
any help?
Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word
119:9-16 The Word that Delights
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves
119:105-112 The Word that Guides
Pretty dull, huh?
any help?
Monday, October 26, 2009
On Suffering
Three friends of mine, Noel Debien, David Hohne, Andrew Sloane, speak on theodicy on the ABC, along with Carolyn Martin.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
On Theological Idiosyncrasies
I am a Protestant. In principle and in practice, I am committed to the authority of scripture - wherever that may take me. That means living with some doctrinal and hermeneutical difficulties, perhaps - but there is a humility in saying that no system or institution is paramount here. In principle, I am open to being convinced that the Bible is saying something other than what I - and perhaps even a large swathe of Christians through history - thought it always had.
The christian academic/theologian is given the gift of time by the church - time to think and write and articulate the great truths of the Christian faith. Necessarily, he or she is given a certain freedom of inquiry - to follow where the scriptures may lead as much as possible without fear or favour. But he/she also exists and teaches within a community of context, to which he/she is responsible, and for whom practices and confessions have been framed in order to preserve true teaching from false.
So: consider this possibility: the theologian/biblical scholar becomes convinced in the course of his/her study that Scripture teaches something that doesn't seem to be reflected in the teaching and practices of the church to which he or she belongs. Romans 7 is really about the pre-Christian life (for example). Or, say, annihilationism is theologically and scripturally justified. Or, the Lord's Supper is a fellowship tea. (NB these are not necessarily positions I hold).
What, then to do?
I would like to think that a Protestant and Reformed mentality allows for the discussion of idiosyncratic positions, so long as there are held to be Scriptural. But (I this is the point of the post) they ought to be recognised as idiosyncratic by the holder of them. The teacher of an idiosyncratic point of view ought to have the integrity to admit to the idiosyncratic and untested nature of the position, until he or she can convince others.
Right?
The christian academic/theologian is given the gift of time by the church - time to think and write and articulate the great truths of the Christian faith. Necessarily, he or she is given a certain freedom of inquiry - to follow where the scriptures may lead as much as possible without fear or favour. But he/she also exists and teaches within a community of context, to which he/she is responsible, and for whom practices and confessions have been framed in order to preserve true teaching from false.
So: consider this possibility: the theologian/biblical scholar becomes convinced in the course of his/her study that Scripture teaches something that doesn't seem to be reflected in the teaching and practices of the church to which he or she belongs. Romans 7 is really about the pre-Christian life (for example). Or, say, annihilationism is theologically and scripturally justified. Or, the Lord's Supper is a fellowship tea. (NB these are not necessarily positions I hold).
What, then to do?
I would like to think that a Protestant and Reformed mentality allows for the discussion of idiosyncratic positions, so long as there are held to be Scriptural. But (I this is the point of the post) they ought to be recognised as idiosyncratic by the holder of them. The teacher of an idiosyncratic point of view ought to have the integrity to admit to the idiosyncratic and untested nature of the position, until he or she can convince others.
Right?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Music in Church in the 21st Century: part 2 - 'if music be the food of love...'
In my previous post, I put forward the tentative thesis, disguised as someone else's, that 'folk' music was the best way to describe the form of music that ought to be found in churches. It is a particular expression of a theology of church of course. It is missional, in that adapts to local conditions; it is non-elite, in that it is accessible by the community without asking extraordinary skill or learning (thus reflecting the priesthood of all believers); it is open to being sanctified for its use by the Christian community.
Necessarily, some forms of music are going to be excluded from this because they are not aesthetically shaped to the purpose of singing together to God. While no particular form of music is commanded or sanctified in scripture, as we try to adapt different forms of music to use in Christian fellowship as expressions of common life we will soon realise that some styles are just so ill-suited they will never work.
In each age, certain musical styles offer themselves in different ways for adaption for use in church meetings. The traditional tunes that we find used in 'Be Thou My Vision' or 'A Mighty Fortress is Our God' are already deeply embedded in the history and culture of the community from which they emerged as an expression of commonality - the pride and security of togetherness is the note they immediately sound. These features really work for church music because of the overlap - Christians want to express precisely those feelings and truths about their God. The return of Celtic-sounding melodies in the music of Townend and Getty works because we associate that style of music with rousing fellow-feeling. If anything, the danger is that it is a little militaristic - they all sound like national anthems in the end!
In our day, the popular song is the form that we find ourselves most aping in our church music. The popular song is nicely fit for purpose when it comes to church music, too - but in a different way. I would want to argue that popular songs of the 20th century are all about love and desire. When we hear a popular song, we immediately associate it with this erotic theme. The singer is an individual singing about his or her longing or loss. That's the genre: when the Beatles play around with this genre and singing about Walruses and whathaveyou, we recognise that this stretching of the genre is taking place, and ride with it. The music of U2 is an interesting case of course: they express desire and love, but most often it isn't for another human being. It is often suggestive of a desire for God....
And this is quite apt. The Psalms give us this theme of longing and desire for God. We Christians recognise that the popular song is a ready-made vehicle for the expression of longing and desire for God, because we instantly think of this when we hear it.
However, this is where the pitfalls lie, too. Since the 1930s the popular song has revealed itself to be capable of quite complex and even profound expressions of grown-up and mature emotions. But it has also been the musical vehicle for short-cuts to emotional fruition. It has lent itself to cheesiness - to the trite, the cheap, the quick, and the disposable. It has a tendency to be an adolescent form of music for expressing adolescent experiences - challenging no-one about anything. It can be extremely limited as a mode.
And while the popular song expresses much of what we might want to say to God, it doesn't capture all of the gestures and attitudes that are available to us...
Necessarily, some forms of music are going to be excluded from this because they are not aesthetically shaped to the purpose of singing together to God. While no particular form of music is commanded or sanctified in scripture, as we try to adapt different forms of music to use in Christian fellowship as expressions of common life we will soon realise that some styles are just so ill-suited they will never work.
In each age, certain musical styles offer themselves in different ways for adaption for use in church meetings. The traditional tunes that we find used in 'Be Thou My Vision' or 'A Mighty Fortress is Our God' are already deeply embedded in the history and culture of the community from which they emerged as an expression of commonality - the pride and security of togetherness is the note they immediately sound. These features really work for church music because of the overlap - Christians want to express precisely those feelings and truths about their God. The return of Celtic-sounding melodies in the music of Townend and Getty works because we associate that style of music with rousing fellow-feeling. If anything, the danger is that it is a little militaristic - they all sound like national anthems in the end!
In our day, the popular song is the form that we find ourselves most aping in our church music. The popular song is nicely fit for purpose when it comes to church music, too - but in a different way. I would want to argue that popular songs of the 20th century are all about love and desire. When we hear a popular song, we immediately associate it with this erotic theme. The singer is an individual singing about his or her longing or loss. That's the genre: when the Beatles play around with this genre and singing about Walruses and whathaveyou, we recognise that this stretching of the genre is taking place, and ride with it. The music of U2 is an interesting case of course: they express desire and love, but most often it isn't for another human being. It is often suggestive of a desire for God....
And this is quite apt. The Psalms give us this theme of longing and desire for God. We Christians recognise that the popular song is a ready-made vehicle for the expression of longing and desire for God, because we instantly think of this when we hear it.
However, this is where the pitfalls lie, too. Since the 1930s the popular song has revealed itself to be capable of quite complex and even profound expressions of grown-up and mature emotions. But it has also been the musical vehicle for short-cuts to emotional fruition. It has lent itself to cheesiness - to the trite, the cheap, the quick, and the disposable. It has a tendency to be an adolescent form of music for expressing adolescent experiences - challenging no-one about anything. It can be extremely limited as a mode.
And while the popular song expresses much of what we might want to say to God, it doesn't capture all of the gestures and attitudes that are available to us...
Monday, October 19, 2009
Music in Church in the 21st Century: my paper for TWIST
This Saturday I will be giving a seminar at TWIST, EMU Music's conference to be held at Angel Place in the city.
Here's my blurb:
And here's my thinking in draft form: churches have on the whole moved beyond the sacred/secular divide when it comes to styles of music. This means they have become 'post-aesthetic' - which means that they have decided that the style of music is only incidental to the business of singing in church.
Nowadays, most evangelical churches imagine themselves choosing a style of music on the basis of its cultural relevance. The right style of music, then, is the style that clicks best with the congregation of the day. Or something like that.
There are good theological instincts at work here. The Bible does not mandate a style of music, though it talks about music often and is operatically full of songs. People in the Bible are constantly singing! What is more, we recognise that the gospel does not come to us bound hard to a particular cultural expression - in fact, the missionary genius of Christianity is that it transcends cultural expressions. Church singing in Africa and church singing in Indonesia are going to be different - thank goodness.
Furthermore, a healthy doctrine of creation and a cursory glance at church history will show us that the church adapts forms of music to its uses rather than needing to invent them from scratch. So: today's beer hall song is tomorrow's Lutheran hymn; that familiar sea-shanty will be turned to use in the Methodist chapel. The creative process of course involves borrowing from the world around us.
But does this mean that church musicians are aesthetic relativists? I don't think it can mean this. We don't want to offer short-cuts here - ie, that the organ is a more sacred instrument than the electric guitar. That is just silly. No: what I mean is this. Without prescribing what the outcome is, I would expect that as music is pressed into the service of congregational singing and worship of God, it will be transformed as music. And this means that the church will continually be generating fresh styles as it puts the music it hears to holy purposes.
Which means that, while church musicians ought to be open to repeating what they hear around them, they ought also to be encouraged to innovate and develop their musical style as a reflection of what they are doing. Borrowing and transforming is one thing; aping is another.
How might this work out in practice? A preacher I greatly admire once said to me when I put the relativist/pragmatic argument forward that no, there was definitely a style for church music. He said it was 'folk music'. Now, I think there is something in this - though I am not quite sure what he meant by 'folk'! That is, a style of music that achieves a marriage between the words of praise and the use in congregational singing can never be arbitrary, though it may vary enormously over time and place. It will be 'folk', I guess, if it is in the service of the people. And it is no accident that Christians have been responsible for developing some highly original forms of music from asking 'what musical style best serves and edifies the people of God?' and 'what musical style best correlates with the words of scripture?'
Here's my blurb:
The influence of popular music since the invention of mass recording is inescapable, even in the church. But has it always been for the good? Are there forms of music that are by their nature unsuitable for use in singing the praises of God? Should the church just make use of whatever it finds in the culture around it? (Have you noticed that church music now sounds like Coldplay?) Can, and should, new forms of music emerge from the corporate worship of the church? How will good theology influence music itself (and not just the words)? This seminar asks probing theological questions about the relationship between sacred and secular, traditional and hip.
And here's my thinking in draft form: churches have on the whole moved beyond the sacred/secular divide when it comes to styles of music. This means they have become 'post-aesthetic' - which means that they have decided that the style of music is only incidental to the business of singing in church.
Nowadays, most evangelical churches imagine themselves choosing a style of music on the basis of its cultural relevance. The right style of music, then, is the style that clicks best with the congregation of the day. Or something like that.
There are good theological instincts at work here. The Bible does not mandate a style of music, though it talks about music often and is operatically full of songs. People in the Bible are constantly singing! What is more, we recognise that the gospel does not come to us bound hard to a particular cultural expression - in fact, the missionary genius of Christianity is that it transcends cultural expressions. Church singing in Africa and church singing in Indonesia are going to be different - thank goodness.
Furthermore, a healthy doctrine of creation and a cursory glance at church history will show us that the church adapts forms of music to its uses rather than needing to invent them from scratch. So: today's beer hall song is tomorrow's Lutheran hymn; that familiar sea-shanty will be turned to use in the Methodist chapel. The creative process of course involves borrowing from the world around us.
But does this mean that church musicians are aesthetic relativists? I don't think it can mean this. We don't want to offer short-cuts here - ie, that the organ is a more sacred instrument than the electric guitar. That is just silly. No: what I mean is this. Without prescribing what the outcome is, I would expect that as music is pressed into the service of congregational singing and worship of God, it will be transformed as music. And this means that the church will continually be generating fresh styles as it puts the music it hears to holy purposes.
Which means that, while church musicians ought to be open to repeating what they hear around them, they ought also to be encouraged to innovate and develop their musical style as a reflection of what they are doing. Borrowing and transforming is one thing; aping is another.
How might this work out in practice? A preacher I greatly admire once said to me when I put the relativist/pragmatic argument forward that no, there was definitely a style for church music. He said it was 'folk music'. Now, I think there is something in this - though I am not quite sure what he meant by 'folk'! That is, a style of music that achieves a marriage between the words of praise and the use in congregational singing can never be arbitrary, though it may vary enormously over time and place. It will be 'folk', I guess, if it is in the service of the people. And it is no accident that Christians have been responsible for developing some highly original forms of music from asking 'what musical style best serves and edifies the people of God?' and 'what musical style best correlates with the words of scripture?'
Friday, October 16, 2009
Why the Philosophy of Education?
Well thanks to thoe who helped me with texts on Education.
Why was I asking? Part of working in a denominational seminary as a theologian is being available to help the denomination think theologically about some of its practices. I have had some involvement in a project on 'community' for Anglicare, the Anglican church's vast welfare arm.
One of other things we are involved in a major way of course is education. We have, in Sydney, 40 or more schools, many of which are less than 20 years old. Some of them are what you would call 'elite' private schools, but many of them are low fee-paying schools in the less-advantaged western suburbs of Sydney.
But there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such. I would guess that little sustained thought goes into thinking through the implications of theology for the curriculum, or the practice of discipline, for example. Or, to what degree do schools foster social inclusiveness.
On the other hand, the Christian schools model, insofar as it promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community, is not the way forward either. Furthermore, taking models from the US and trying to replicate them in Australia ignores the massive cultural and historical differences between us on the very issue of education. So - I will read Doug Wilson, for sure: he is ALWAYS interesting, perceptive, funny and ... well, eccentric. But what works in remote Idaho in the political context of Obama's America is not automatically transferrable to Oz.
So, what is needed is a bit of theological thinking about education which will help educational practioners do their job to the glory of God.
Thoughts anyone?
Why was I asking? Part of working in a denominational seminary as a theologian is being available to help the denomination think theologically about some of its practices. I have had some involvement in a project on 'community' for Anglicare, the Anglican church's vast welfare arm.
One of other things we are involved in a major way of course is education. We have, in Sydney, 40 or more schools, many of which are less than 20 years old. Some of them are what you would call 'elite' private schools, but many of them are low fee-paying schools in the less-advantaged western suburbs of Sydney.
But there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such. I would guess that little sustained thought goes into thinking through the implications of theology for the curriculum, or the practice of discipline, for example. Or, to what degree do schools foster social inclusiveness.
On the other hand, the Christian schools model, insofar as it promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community, is not the way forward either. Furthermore, taking models from the US and trying to replicate them in Australia ignores the massive cultural and historical differences between us on the very issue of education. So - I will read Doug Wilson, for sure: he is ALWAYS interesting, perceptive, funny and ... well, eccentric. But what works in remote Idaho in the political context of Obama's America is not automatically transferrable to Oz.
So, what is needed is a bit of theological thinking about education which will help educational practioners do their job to the glory of God.
Thoughts anyone?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Theory of Education
Help me -
I need to compile a must-read reading list in the theory and philosophy of education. It ought to include classics as well as state-of-the-art works. And I am not interested in the tin-tacks of teaching: I need to get over education as a philosophy.
Any ideas?
I need to compile a must-read reading list in the theory and philosophy of education. It ought to include classics as well as state-of-the-art works. And I am not interested in the tin-tacks of teaching: I need to get over education as a philosophy.
Any ideas?
Friday, October 09, 2009
Doubt - your experiences?
I am conducting some research into why Christians - and ex-Christians - doubt. And what helped them through it, if anything did. I'd love to have some personal testimonies here ... though doubt has some features that are common in every experience, because it is so personal doubt is very different for different folks. Things one person just lives with, the next person finds crippling.
Please feel to go anonymous if that helps.
Please feel to go anonymous if that helps.
Monday, October 05, 2009
My article on Christopher Hitchens at the SMH
It's on the online opinion section (not the print bit). It isn't a knock down or anything, but...
Feel free to join the discussion there!
Feel free to join the discussion there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)